Talk:Air well (condenser)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]An interesting, well illustrated and well-referenced article. In general, it appears to be at or about GA-level.
I'll now review this section by section, leaving the WP:lead until last.
- Moisture -
DonePyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The first and third paragraphs appear to be OK.
- The second paragraph is unreferenced. I've slightly modified the first statement; and I would suggest that we need, as a minimum, WP:verification for the "fog claim" and the "latent heat claim" - if you could produced one to verify the claim that dew is different from fog that would be even better, but I'm not insisting on this one.
- I have added a reference to the Beysens/Milimouk article which discusses fog and dew at some length.
- I have added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which discusses the mathematics of high mass condensers at length including discussing latent heat. This article may be difficult to find without paying. I would not have thought that the point was controversial.
- High mass collectors
- The Zibold’s collector section appears to be confirmed by ref 9. However, ref 9 states that the stones were discovered by Zibold, whereas the first paragraph does not make it clear that Zibold was the discoverer.
- I think I have clarified that matter. I have also added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which has a bit more detail on the matter.
Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think I have clarified that matter. I have also added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which has a bit more detail on the matter.
- Klaphake’s collectors - a number of claims are made that don't appear to be verified by refs 15 & 16. Unless I've missed it - there is no verification of speculation about German Secret police, the Cook railway, a meeting in London with the Premier of South Australia.
- The reference to the Uncommon Lives site actually has several pages and it is necessary to go through them. I have now provided more specific links.
Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reference to the Uncommon Lives site actually has several pages and it is necessary to go through them. I have now provided more specific links.
- International Organization for Dew Utilization
- First paragraph - Ref 26, Youtube, cannot be regarded as a reliable source, but there is no reason why it can't go into the External links section.
- Point taken. I have moved the link to the External links section.
Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken. I have moved the link to the External links section.
- Second paragraph - this is unreferenced.
- Reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fifth paragaph is unreferenced.
- Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seventh paragaph is unreferenced.
- Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Active collectors -
.... to be continued.Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it will be next weekend before I finish this review. The article will pass, but there are a few minor fixes needed first; and I see that you are actively working on them.Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- This section appears to be satisfactory.
- WP:Lead -
Satisfactory.
Summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A interesting, wide-ranging article
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quaity of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)